Hannah Montana Topless In Vanity Fair

[sue4u2]

Originally posted by deep

What can you tell your daughters?

Just show them Miley's very sincere unequivocally apology.

What more can anyone want?
It is a great lesson for all young girls to be very careful of anyone that has a camera and wants to take pictures.

To be honest I haven't seen that much of her since she's not someone I would typically look out for. I've only seen parts of her show once when I was keeping my granddaughters.

and your are right in regards to people wanting to take pictures etc. The outrage I feel goes more towards the exploitation of her and other young people rather than the photo by itself.

[A_Wanderer]

Is it really exploitation? It is publicity, the type that can make it so much easier to break out of that child star niche when she turns 18. The backpeddling seems to be protecting the economic interest today that could be threatened by unwarranted criticism.

The portrait has an erotic component to it but it is not erotica and certainly not pornography. The style makes judging age tricky, but she isn't a 12 year old. In this society as in every society girls become sexualised when they go through puberty, just going by this picture she could just as easily be 19.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
just going by this picture she could just as easily be 19.

That's the point. What's ultimately more important, breaking out of the child star niche or protecting certain things for and about your child? That's the question for her parents to decide, while she is still a minor. Ask Britney's parents if they would do anything differently, or Lindsay's. On the other hand maybe they're not the best examples.

She has more than enough money already to lead a comfortable life, and so do her parents. It's a sad statement that young girls have to become sexualized at an early age in Hollywood and the music industry in order to have successful careers. Hopefully some can do so without succumbing.

[A_Wanderer]

At fifteen she does need protection, but she isn't a child. A fifteen year old sleeps with their boyfriend or girlfriend - are we to take that as innocence shattering material or view it as completely normal (I opt for the latter). There is the role model aspect, but if a young girl is getting exploited the burden will rest on the abuser, not the victim or the society at large (in general terms).

Theres this weird vibe that growing up isn't a process, that somehow people are innocent right up until they are "of age" whenever that's supposed to be. I think that the picture is fine, it isn't presenting her as a child and it isn't an indictment of society sexualising children.

I find pictures of twenty year olds wearing pajamas with teddy bears pretending to be innocent far more creepy than this photo. Sexualising what young girls are is more disturbing to me than a teenage girl taking on a grown up sexuality.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

can the 14 year old freshman at the school i work at who sent naked pictures of herself to half the football team in september retroactively blame miley cyrus for her ills?

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by maycocksean
I first read this thread today at school and I asked my students 9th and 10th graders--what they thought of the photo. The fact that I felt a little weird showing it to them told me something. . .their reaction told me more. They all felt it was inappropriate.

Obviously there's a lot of "sexy is in the eye of the beholder" going on in this discussion. Some people see an underage sexpot, others see an artistic and tasteful photo. So I can see how it's hard for people to understand how others can NOT see what they see.

But I think there a couple of fairly objective questions that can be asked:

Does she look 15 in the photo?

I would say no, she looks older.

Second, how old are Miley's typical fans? I'd argue they are definitely NOT 15. . .they're much younger. While such a photo might not be a "problem" for 15 years olds (though that too is debateable) it would be a probelm for 8-10 year olds to see such a photo and decide to emulate.

To me the fact that you've got a younger role model for still younger kids, suggests that such a photo is unwise.

On a more subjective note, I do think the photo is inappropriate and does suggest sexuality. I think it was a poor decision for the family to sign off on it. I mean sure Liebovitz thinks it's artistic and in good taste but nudes can also be done artistically and in good taste without suggesting sexuality per se, and are we about to suggest that a completely nude photo of Miley Cyrus would be acceptable as long as it was artistic and in good taste was not "overtly" sexual?

It's not the fact that her back is showing; it's not the fact that she's wearing make-up. It's the whole picture, the come-hither feel of the photo.

[elevated_u2_fan]

Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
gonna be a good harvest this year.


seriously though... when is it a sexual and when is it a picture of innocence? is it in the eyes of the beholder?

is this sexual?

You make a good point but the problem I have is that Peter Rowan pictured above was not already a famous icon for millions of young adults when that picture was taken. I don’t have a problem with either photo to tell the truth but in her case she is a role model (whether she likes it or not) and unfortunately for her, should be held to a higher standard imo…

I agree that she is technically to young to have known how people would have taken this but both her father and I would hope someone at Vanity Fair should have paused before approving this photo but hey, no press is bad press now is it?

Vanity Fair is going to sell a shit load of magazines and Disney is going to sell a shit load of merchandise because of this, it’s a win-win situation…

[deep]

^ and yes, that appears to be a topless picture,
that might appeal to "pedos"



Does she look 15? 1or 14? in this picture.

I don't know when this picture was taken?

but, I'd say she is more appealing, to older men in that picture



Sean, no disrespect, I have told you before how much I respect what you are choosing to do with your life.


But, I am not sure your school children in Saipan, with different backgrounds and cultures are the best gage.

I think if you asked them about many of the things that Miley Cyrus does
they and many people in Asian countries would not approve .

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by deep

but, I'd say she is more appealing, to older men in that picture

Why? Because she looks older? By definition, pedophiles are sexually attracted to children.

My 11 year old niece was a huge Hannah Montana fan when she was 9, I'm not so sure about now, but I'll see her next week and I'll ask her about this. She comes from a very conservative family in Richmond and I would say is much less worldly than her cousin who grew up in NYC was at her age. I doubt my NYC-sister and her daughter would have a problem with this; I can guarantee you the Richmond sister and daughter have a problem with it.

It's just creepy enough that I think it crosses a line. It's not a huge big deal, but definitely a gray area.

[deep]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl


Why? Because she looks older? By definition, pedophiles are sexually attracted to children.


It's not a huge big deal, but definitely a gray area.

I really can't get inside the mind of a "pedo"

They might like to park across the street from a pre-school and watch kids play

I think most kids would just say Hannah looks sad, or scary

I do agree it is
not a huge big deal.


but some are trying to make it that

[corianderstem]

If Vanessa Hudgens (from High School Musical) survived the scandal of having full-on nude pictures of her all over the internet, I think Miley will survive this.

[deep]

^ Now, that fits the definition of "topless" pictures.

[corianderstem]

Yep. A good rule for any and everyone: don't take nude pictures of yourself ever ever ever. Just in case.

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Originally posted by corianderstem
Yep. A good rule for any and everyone: don't take nude pictures of yourself ever ever ever. Just in case.

Or make sure you delete them off of your camera phone.


What?

[deep]

Originally posted by corianderstem
Yep. A good rule for any and everyone: don't take nude pictures of yourself ever ever ever. Just in case.

there goes half the traffic on the internet

[blueeyedgirl]

I had read some headlines about this but not seen any pics till this thread. And my first reaction was "That's it?" From the furore, I was expecting tits hanging out at the least!

To me the shots look pretty tame. And there's a lot of talk here of Britney, Lindsay etc. But for every Britney, you could put forward Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields, who both played prostitutes when they were 12. And they turned out pretty OK. I think most European actresses also have done more publicity shots that would freak the average American, Vanessa Paradis from what I remember did more "sexual" shots at teh same kind of age. I suppose what I'm trying to say is to try not to blow it out of all proportion

[deep]

Originally posted by blueeyedgirl
I had read some headlines about this but not seen any pics till this thread. And my first reaction was "That's it?" From the furore, I was expecting tits hanging out at the least!

don't you dare say it is not a "topless" picture

[melon]

Originally posted by deep
^ and yes, that appears to be a topless picture,
that might appeal to "pedos"

Wasn't that why the U.S. "Boy" cover was changed, though?



They had their minds in the gutter even back then.

[anitram]

I subscribe to VF.

I don't really care about this cover one way or another but honestly, what reader of VF wants to know anything about this girl? Very strange target audience, so that leads me to believe they just wanted a shocking photo, since I'm pretty sure 90% of the readership will not care one iota for the article itself.

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
At fifteen she does need protection, but she isn't a child. A fifteen year old sleeps with their boyfriend or girlfriend - are we to take that as innocence shattering material or view it as completely normal (I opt for the latter). There is the role model aspect, but if a young girl is getting exploited the burden will rest on the abuser, not the victim or the society at large (in general terms).

Theres this weird vibe that growing up isn't a process, that somehow people are innocent right up until they are "of age" whenever that's supposed to be. I think that the picture is fine, it isn't presenting her as a child and it isn't an indictment of society sexualising children.

From a strictly logical standpoint, you're right.

But the reality is that people never have and never will live guided strictly by logic. The idea that physically mature girls should not be "sexualized" until they reach an arbitrarily chosen age is a societal thing--something that's been established by our time and culture. And as "irrational" as that may be it still can and should carry some weight.

And as I've already stated, the fact that her core audience is prepubescent should have been taken into account when making the decision. I agree with those that have stated that she and her family and agent had their eye on the "bigger" prize of adult "stardom."